In Defense of Casting Stones at Mel Gibson

E.D., I have a great amount of respect for your frequent calls for us to rise above passing judgment over other people, and to keep in mind the inner turmoil that Mel Gibson is clearly living with. I sympathize with your sense that we’re griping about the splinter in his eye, casting the first stone, and that we don’t have all the facts. Finally, I’d agree that people should be free to enjoy the art they wish to. If we only enjoyed art made by sane, well-adjusted people, we’d run out of choices pretty quickly.

Nevertheless, I think passing judgment is a good thing for society to do in this case, fair or not.

Certainly, me and my wife have had what she calls “kitchen sink fights” before. And couples must fight, as the man said. And, absolutely, the pain of a collapsing romantic relationship can lead people to say terrible things. I’d never want my private life in the depths of its worst moments to be made public that way, and especially not recordings of those kitchen sink fights.

But, here’s the thing: I don’t fight that way. And I’d imagine you don’t either. What disturbs me about those tapes isn’t the language; it’s the level of misogyny. Me and my wife fight about all sorts of things, most of which are fairly stupid. But the way she dresses doesn’t “hurt” me. It doesn’t “humiliate me” if other men find her attractive. Because, ultimately, on some level, I realize that it’s none of my damn business. Whether or not other people find her attractive isn’t something I expect her to control for my sake or me to control for her sake. This isn’t Saudi Arabia, and her autonomy isn’t something she’s done to me. It’s a fact- and a good one.

I think I hear something different than you do in those Gibson tapes. I hear men from my family who try to control the women in their lives. I hear the possessive, always wounded, always manipulative and controlling, insecure creeps whose wives come to my wife for therapy. I hear someone who’s entitled to sex, entitled to tell his partner how to dress and behave, and who ultimately relates all of the choices she makes in her own life to his personal happiness. I hear the man I might have been, if I hadn’t had the extreme good fortune to be sexually attracted, from a young age, to the sort of smart, independent women who wouldn’t take my crap. Acting like that was simply not an option. And it’s totally freeing to accept that your loved ones will think, act, dress, and be whatever way they want to in their own lives without it hurting you or feeling you need to control them.*

Nevertheless, celebrities are not known for surrounding themselves with people who won’t take their crap. And men, or women, who behave this way are often excused because “everyone gets jealous” or “it’s none of our business”. And, of course, none of us can do anything to change how someone else acts in their own personal relationship. But for society to say in a forthright way that men, or women, who treat their loved ones this way need to stop doing so- that doesn’t strike me as a bad thing. Since this is a site that’s leaning libertarian as of late, I think it’s also very healthy to reflect on the ways that bullying individuals can limit the autonomy of others in their private lives, and how often this impacts women. In terms of casting stones, it’s worth remembering that the specific context of Christ’s comment was a city stoning a woman to death out of rage at her sexual choices.

* Please note: This post is intended to detail the factors driving my own opinion in this particular case. In no way do I mean to suggest that Kain disagrees with my feelings about these particular gender issues. We’re just emphasizing different things in this case.

@Dara, Thanks for the note! I removed a sentence from the post referring to that incident and really I did so because I didn’t want to give the impression that the violence greatly changes the character of that conversation for me. When a man talks to his partner that way, in my experience, violence is always hovering in the background, whether or not it erupts. So I didn’t want to give the impression that, if he hadn’t hit her, I’d view the tapes differently.Report

That’s a really eloquent way to put it, and I appreciate that you find the two kinds of violence to be comparable. But in my experience, I’ve often found that the easier it is to attribute rhetorical violence to individual pathology–oh, he’s just sick; oh, he’s just angry–the more resistant people are to admitting that something said in anger can also be reflective of broad misogyny that infects the rest of the relationship. This is the sort of thing that worries me about E.D.’s plea that we can’t understand Gibson’s “mindset;” it’s a denial that his behavior could possibly fit patterns of misogyny and domestic abuse.

It tends to be much harder to deny that rhetorical violence always has the threat of physical violence behind it, however, when there’s actual evidence of physical violence as well. The firm line between words and deeds that people-not-you often draw kind of has to wobble then, if not disappear outright. So just for the sake of the readership–and E.D.–I think it’s salient.Report

“I was replying to Will H’s comment that “If this material is to be used in evidence, then it should be reserved for the hearing. At that time, it becomes a matter of public record, but not until then.”

—–

My reply to you was put into the wrong place by mistake I had originally meant it for Will H. My bad.Report

Listen, I’m completely aware that the violence in the words and the implied physical violence are the same beast. Even in my most terrible fights I have never even considered going to that place, though I have said hurtful things, things I regret saying enormously. Even if the physical violence conveyed in this conversation didn’t happen (and we don’t know how it happened or what happened exactly either) the violence in the words, in the misogyny is very real. And very disturbing.

Certainly Gibson should be judged for this. I only hope to point out that people are more complex than we cast them in the mob we call the court of public opinion. People have deep scars that shape them and shape their actions. Pain and addiction and mental illness.

Nor do I mean to blame the victim when I call into question his girlfriend’s motives. I think we are likely looking at two people in bad places in their lives. She can be a victim and still be a very bad person; he can be a very bad person and still be deserving of more than the mob. Or perhaps they are neither ‘bad’ people, but simply flawed people who found themselves in hell. There but for the grace of God go I.Report

@E.D. Kain, Absolutely, and again I wasn’t trying to say that you’re of a different opinion about misogyny or violence or any of that. I just see an upside to the court of public opinion that I wanted to point out. Lately, of course, I’ve been reading these tragic plays in which the Greeks reflected on the dangers of anger and violence and even misogyny, and it occurs to me that the court of public opinion might serve the same function for people today, even while it tends to shave off the nuances. It allows us to say, in a general way, this is the road we’d better not go down ourselves. I’d agree though that the danger is turning individuals into the Other that allows us to externalize our own failings.Report

@Rufus F., Outstanding response. Your deduction and application of Greek Tragedies – outstanding. I truly appreciated you last two sentences as these hit the nail on the head:

It allows us to say, in a general way, this is the road we’d better not go down ourselves. I’d agree though that the danger is turning individuals into the Other that allows us to externalize our own failings.

You make valid points, all; but I believe the truth of the matter lies somewhat deeper. Of course, this man is very sick, and the situation has gone on to the point where it’s truly dangerous. That goes without saying. But to say that this is misogyny is missing the point. That’s a symptom, and not the disease itself. The same with the alcoholism. Playing out his worst moments publicly does nothing to get this man the help that he needs, and it does nothing to protect the others from him. It’s just rubbernecking of the worst sort. I believe it does more to escalate the situation than it does to resolve it. In fact, it seems like it placed that resolution two steps back. There might well be a time when it would be appropriate for the public to review this, but I believe there are more important aspects of it that need to be attended to immediately than to provide some carnival sideshow. I don’t really know what’s going on, and I don’t care to. I just hope that he is able to get the help that he needs. If simply being on the road to Damascus would make him see a blinding light, then I would say that’s where he needs to be. I think this sort of thing is more like a security checkpoint before he’s allowed to enter the turnstile to the road; ie it only serves to delay what is truly needed. That doesn’t make him any more whole, and it doesn’t make her any more safe.Report

Sorry, that was my bad. I agree that it “doesn’t make him any more whole, and it doesn’t make her any more safe.” But what if it gives another woman somewhere, whose abuser isn’t famous and who is convinced that the abuse is her fault or that no one would believe her, the strength to get help? This is, I think, some of what Rufus hinted at in his post by addressing the social utility of shame.Report

@Dara, I don’t believe that women are so foolish that they are unable to see that this sort of thing is unacceptable. I’m not advocating leaving him alone. I’m advocating letting the proper authorities deal with the matter. And there’s no way I could equate the general public as being the proper authorities without advocating vigilante justice. And I suppose that’s where we’re headed with this, is under what circumstances and to what degree is vigilante justice not only permissible, but desirable.Report

@Will H., Will, I’m sympathetic to your point that the scorn of the general public is not going to help Mel Gibson, and that there’s a freakshow quality to all of this. And I’m sympathetic to Kain’s point that it’s ugly to kick someone when they’re down. I was just trying to show another side of public scorn, which Dara rightfully calls the social utility of shame.

Nowhere did I suggest that the public either has the authority to punish Mel Gibson or that they should have that ability. Talking about the public denying a sick man medicine or enacting vigilante justice is completely ridiculous because the public hasn’t that power or authority and nothing in this post suggests at all that I think they should, or that the public having an opinion on the matter is somehow tantamount to them enacting vigilante justice.

Sensate beings have opinions and they express them. I see it as similar to the couple across the street from us, with small children, who used to have screaming fights that always ended with the cops being called. Yes, the neighbors had some nasty things to say about them among themselves, and that probably didn’t help them. But, it’s also how communities establish for themselves what behavior is healthy and what’s poisonous. And if their kids heard that and absorbed it, I think that’s a plus.

It’s not that women don’t know that it’s unacceptable for a man to beat a woman, but what cultures find acceptable is always in flux and they’re are always trying to define it. And again, I’m focusing on the language because it’s still not that clear to everyone that talking to your partner that way, in itself, is unacceptable.

Obviously, you couldn’t know this, but where I’m coming from is that my father talked to my mother (and me) that way during my entire childhood. Eventually, he hit her a few times and she left him (for another man who hit her), but I was about 17 at that point. While I knew that hitting her was unacceptable, and I never really liked the way he talked to her, I also thought that maybe this was just human nature. The fact that my father was terrified by my mother getting a job and a driver’s license (!) I equated with the fact that my Grandfather never let my Grandmother have a job or a driver’s license; which I equated with the fact that, as a 17 year old boy, girls were both fascinating and terrifying to me. It wasn’t that I thought it was exactly healthy- I just thought that state of mind was unavoidable and I never heard anyone say that it isn’t, or that healthy people don’t behave that way, even if violence isn’t a factor.

What happened, of course, was I fell in love with a beautiful, amazing girl for the first time in my life, and I eventually started thinking and talking that way, thinking it was unavoidable human nature. She soon left and broke my heart, and it was the best thing that could have happened. Because I never went down that path again, not even mentally. Jealousy is poison. Nothing good ever comes from it.

So I know that our nature can be reformed through shame. I’m not saying this will ever happen to someone of Mel Gibson’s wealth or age or stature. Probably not. My father is much kinder today, but still blames my mother for leaving him. And I would never say that the public has some authority to punish Mel Gibson, beyond not watching his lousy movies. Nor that they should.

And I still do see what you and Kain mean about the ugliness of the whole spectacle and public fascination with it. I agree with that. My point was simply that there is also an upside to people expressing their opinions on this topic. Because maybe it will lead to some teenager joking about Mel Gibson and his girlfriend around their friends or parents, and hearing someone say, “you know, right, that it is totally unacceptable to treat a woman that way?” I never heard anyone say that before my first girlfriend did. It’s a good lesson to learn.Report

It could make her feel more safe, in that this makes sure she never gets another terrifying phone call from him, that threatens her with violence. At the very least, being threatened and screamed at likes this is emotional abuse – why she needs to be concerned about protecting her abuser is beyond me. If this stops him from doing this again, more power to her.Report

additionally, this ceased to be a private matter when he hit her. This is a crime, no matter what the underlying pathology was there to create the conditions for making him commit this crime. Protecting criminals by keeping their crimes secret and private, does not help anyone. As much power, influence and money that he has, I’m sure he could have always made sure that this be kept quiet (or at least, always at the level of “he said vs. she said”) if it had remained behind the scenes.Report

@silentbeep, I made that same point earlier. The general public has no authority to act in such a matter. If this material is to be used in evidence, then it should be reserved for the hearing. At that time, it becomes a matter of public record, but not until then.Report

whether or not she is able to use the tapes as evidence is not really my concern. the fact that the tapes can be used as a way to protect her from further abuse, with or without the authorities, is the point. The authorities can still be dealt with, whether or not they actually help her to a sufficient degree is another matter. Not every woman who goes to the authorities in such cases are sufficiently helped or protected from their abusers.Report

I was replying to Will H’s comment that “If this material is to be used in evidence, then it should be reserved for the hearing. At that time, it becomes a matter of public record, but not until then.”Report

letting as many people know that you are the victim of abuse, is actually a great deterrent. This man would’ve been protected through more privacy – this is not normal circumstances, we are dealing with someone that has huge celebrity status and notoriety and relative wealth. To counteract Gibson’s considerable advantages, I think Oksana made a fine decision, considering the extremely unusual circumstances. For non-celebrity such a public airing may not be necessary to keep one safe, nor would radaronline care.

But even for “non-celebrity” expert advice is often given to the abused, to tell neighbors, one’s children’s schools, family, friends, that you are in danger. In this case, it may keep her safe.Report

I am not talking about using this tape as matter of a legal public record. What I am talking about, is that as soon as he hit her, which he never denied, in fact he said she “deserved” it, this went beyond “a really ugly fight between two just very angry people.” You don’t need a jury to know that domestic violence is not acceptable ethically, morally and not even legally. At that point, in my mind, she had every right to do what she had to do (short of violence) to keep her emotionally and phyiscally safe from her abuser.Report

@silentbeep, Then the next time he goes to hit her, we know exactly what type of recording the people in Chicago should listen to in order to pronounce her as “safe.” Maybe they could just play a tape of the 9-11 attacks as you go into an airport and stop all the searches.Report

I am not talking about using this tape as matter of a legal public record. What I am talking about, is that as soon as he hit her, which he never denied, in fact he said she “deserved” it, this went beyond “a really ugly fight between two just very angry people.” You don’t need a jury to know that domestic violence is not acceptable ethically, morally and not even legally. At that point, in my mind, she had every right to do what she had to do (short of violence) to keep her emotionally and phyiscally safe from her abuser. If that meant doing this in the most public way possible, more power to her. This is a powerful man, with lots of money to spend on lawyers, more than the average person, she was up against a lot here.Report

@silentbeep, It is simply not feasible that for people in Chicago to listen to a recording of something that took place in California several months ago might keep anyone safe. Playing the tapes in the media is not about keeping anyone safe. It is an escalation of the one particular situation. It doesn’t protect anyone. It doesn’t resolve anything.Report

this is where we are just going to have to disagree, and this kind of victim-blaming is really upsetting to see here on this amazing blog – i’m disapointed. yes, it can keep someone from having to face future threats, future violence, and future physical assault from a very public figure – making it as public as possible, with hard evidence that he did hit her (ex. him saying “you deserved it”) creates a situation where he dare not try and do it again for fear of further exposure. I don’t understand why keeping abuse as secretive as possible when its coming from a very public figure, is Oksana’s concern. We have no idea what kind of relationship or what kind of threats Gibson was capable of after he admitted hitting her.Report

To Rufus F. hereTo be clear, it’s not that I don’t agree with that, it’s that I don’t believe that right now is the appropriate time. I’m sure there will come a time; but it’s just that right now isn’t it. And just as anyone can see that your mother getting a job or a driver’s license wasn’t really what the underlying issue was in the above example, the things that jump out at first really aren’t the issue here. And I’m not blaming the victim here. No matter what she may have done, hitting her was inexcusable. The phone threats were inexcusable. But there is an underlying cause. I don’t believe that making the situation more unhealthy for the participants is likely to yield a desirable result. I’m not sure what will. But I am opposed to escalating the matter in such situations.Report

I think the only thing Mel Gibson’s recorded rant does is illustrate that anyone can be a violent psychopath. Violence knows no social boundaries.

Beyond that, I think it’s useless. I don’t think Gibson will be one whit less likely to smack someone else. He won’t even be one whit less likely to hit this same person. Given abuser psychology, he’ll view it as further proof as her need to be knocked around.

Nor do I think it will help convince some nameless abuse victim decide to leave. More likely, the thought pattern will be, “God if Mel Gibson will threaten her that way, my man will probably follow through on it.” If anything, this tape shows that walking away doesn’t make you safe.

What it might do is kill Mel Gibson’s career. If enough public outrage is lodged, he might (possibly) become untouchable. Given that his box office draw is down, I find that a lot more likely than any other outcome.

The other thing it does it potentially taint the jury pool for future legal actions. From this point forward, any action against him for violent behavior will begin by asking potential jurors if they have heard this tape or been influenced by it.

As far as hearing all sorts of other people, that’s unavoidable. But Gibson deserves to be judged on his own actions and his own case. If we hear other voices to the point where the facts of this case are overlooked, then it is a miscarriage of justice – and it does absolutely nothing for those who have already been turned out by the justice system.Report

Religious Institutions. Religious institutions may resume services subject to the following conditions, which apply to churches, synagogues, temples, mosques, interfaith centers, and any other space, including rented space, where religious or faith gatherings are held: 1. Indoor religious gatherings are limited to no more than ten people. 2. Outdoor religious gatherings of up to 250 people are allowed. Outdoor services may be held on any outdoor space the religious institution owns, rents, or reserves for use. 3. All attendees at either indoor or outdoor services must maintain appropriate social distancing of six feet and wear face masks or facial coverings at all times. 4. There shall be no consumption of food or beverage of any kind before, during, or after religious services, including food or beverage that would typically be consumed as part of a religious service. 5. Collection plates or receptacles may not be passed to or between attendees. 6. There should be no hand shaking or other physical contact between congregants before, during, or after religious services. Attendees shall not congregate with other attendees on the property where religious services are being held before or after services. Family members or those who live in the same household or who attend a service together in the same vehicle may be closer than six feet apart but shall remain at least six feet apart from any other persons or family groups. 7. Singing is permitted, but not recommended. If singing takes place, only the choir or religious leaders may sing. Any person singing without a mask or facial covering must maintain a 12-foot distance from other persons, including religious leaders, other singers, or the congregation. 8. Outdoor or drive-in services may be conducted with attendees remaining in their vehicles. If utilizing parking lots for either holding for religious services or for parking for services held elsewhere on the premises, religious institutions shall ensure there is adequate parking available. 9. All high touch areas, (including benches, chairs, etc.) must be cleaned and decontaminated after every service. 10. Religious institutions are encouraged to follow the guidelines issued by Governor Hogan.

“There shall be no consumption of food or beverage of any kind before, during, or after religious services, including food or beverage that would typically be consumed as part of a religious service,” the order says in a section delineating norms and restrictions on religious services.

The consumption of the consecrated species at Mass, at least by the celebrant, is an integral part of the Eucharistic rite. Rules prohibiting even the celebrating priest from receiving the Eucharist would ban the licit celebration of Mass by any priest.

CNA asked the Howard County public affairs office to comment on how the rule aligns with First Amendment religious freedom and free exercise rights.

Howard County spokesman Scott Peterson told CNA in a statement that "Howard County has not fully implemented Phase 1 of Reopening. We continue to do an incremental rollout based on health and safety guidelines, analysis of data and metrics specific to Howard County and in consultation with our local Health Department."

"With this said," Peterson added, "we continue to get stakeholder feedback in order to fully reopen to Phase 1."

The executive order also limits attendance at indoor worship spaces to 10 people or fewer, limits outdoor services to 250 socially-distanced people wearing masks, forbids the passing of collection plates, and bans handshakes and physical contact between worshippers.

In contrast to the 10-person limit for churches, establishments listed in the order that do not host religious services are permitted to operate at 50% capacity.

In the early days of the Coronavirus epidemic, there were hopes that the disease could be treated with a compound called hydroxychloroquine (HCQ). HCQ is a long-established inexpensive medicine that is widely used to treat malaria. It also has uses for treating rheumatoid arthritis and lupus. There had been some indications that HCQ could treat SARS virus infections by attacking the spike proteins that coronaviruses use to latch onto cells and inject their genetic material. Initial small-scale studies of the drug on COVID-19 patients indicated some positive effect (in combination with the antibiotic azithromycin). President Trump, in March, promoted HCQ as a game-changer and is apparently taking it as a prophylaxis after potentially being exposed by White House staff.

Initial claims of the efficacy of this therapy were a perfect illustration of why we base decisions on scientific studies and not anecdotes. By late March, Twitter was filled with stories of "my cousin's mother's former roommate was on death's door and took this therapy and miraculously recovered". But such stories, even assuming they are true, mean nothing. With COVID-19, we know that seriously ill people reach an inflection point where they either recover or die. If they died while taking the HCQ regimen, we don't hear from them because...they died. And if they recover without taking it, we don't hear from them because...they didn't take it. Our simian brains have evolved to think that correlation is causation. But it isn't. If I sacrificed a goat in every COVID-19 patient's room, some of them would recover just by chance. That doesn't mean we should start a massive holocaust of caprines.

However, even putting aside anecdotes, there were good reasons to believe the HCQ regimen might work. And given the seriousness of this disease and the desperation of those trying to save lives, it's understandable that doctors began using it for critically ill patients and scientists began researching its efficacy.

Why Trump became fixated on it is equally understandable. Trump has been looking for a quick fix to this crisis since Day One. Denial failed. Closing off (some) travel to China failed. A vaccine is months if not years away. So HCQ offered him what he wanted -- a way to fix this problem without the hard work, tough choices and sacrifice of stay-at-home orders, masks, isolation and quarantine. So eager were they to adopt the quick fix, the Administration made plans to distribute millions of doses of this unproven drug in lieu of taking more concrete steps to address the crisis.[efn_note]Although the claim that Trump stands to profit off HCQ sales does not appear to hold much water.[/efn_note]

This is also why certain fringe corners of the internet became fixated on it. There has arisen a subset of the COVID Truthers that I'm calling HCQ Truthers: people who believe that HCQ isn't just something that may save some lives but is, in fact, a miracle cure that it's only being held back so that...well, take your pick. So that Democrats can wreck the economy. So that Bill Gates can inject us with tracking devices. So that we can clear off the Social Security rolls. And this isn't just a US phenomenon nor is it all about Trump. Overseas friends tell me that COVID trutherism in general and HCQ trutherism in particular have arisen all over the Western World.

It's no accident that the HCQ Truthers seem to share a great deal of headspace with the anti-Vaxxers. It fills the same needs

In both cases, the idea was started by flawed studies. The initial studies out of China and France that indicated HCQ worked were heavily criticized for methodological errors (although note that neither claimed it was a miracle cure). Since then, larger studies have shown no effect.

HCQ trutherism offers an explanation for tragedy beyond the random cruelty of nature. Just as anti-vaxxers don't want to believe that sometimes autism just happens, HCQ Truthers don't want to believe that sometimes nature just releases awful epidemics on us. It's more comforting, in some ways, to think that bad happenings are all part of a plan by shadowy forces.

There is, however, another crazy side that doesn't get as much attention because their crazy is a bit more subtle. These are the people who have decided that, since Trump is touting the HCQ treatment, it must not work. It can not work. It can not be allowed to work. There is an undisguised glee when studies show that HCQ does not work and a willingness to blame HCQ shortages on Trump and only Trump.[efn_note]Not to mention the odd fish tank cleaner poisoning that has nothing to do with him.[/efn_note]

In between the two camps are everyone else: scientists, doctors and ordinary folk who just want to know whether this thing works or not, politics and conspiracy theories be damned. Well, last week, we got a big indication that it does not. A massive study out of the Lancet concluded that the HCQ regimen has no measurable positive effect. In fact, death rates were higher for those who took the regimen, likely due to heart arrhythmias induced by the drug.

So is the debate over? Can we move on from HCQ? Not quite.

First of all, the study is a retrospective study, looking backward at nearly 100,000 cases over the last four months. That's a massive sample that allows one to correct for potential confounding factors. But it's not a double-blind trial, so there may be certain biases that can not be avoided. In response to the publication, a group doing a controlled study unblinded some of their data (that is, they let an independent group look up who was getting the actual HCQ and who was getting a placebo). It did not show enough of a safety concern to warrant ending the study.

It's also worth noting that because this is an unproven therapy, it is usually being used on only the sickest patients (the odd President of the United States aside). It's possible earlier use of the drug, when the body is not already at war with itself, could help.

With those caveats in mind, however, this study at least makes it clear that HCQ is not the miracle cure some fringe corners of the internet are pretending it is. And it should make doctors hesitant in giving to people who already have heart issues.

As you can imagine, this has only fed the twin camps of derangement. The truther arguments tend to fall into the usual holes that truther theories do:

"How can this be a four-month study when we only learned about COVID in January!" The HCQ protocol started being used almost immediately because of previous research on coronaviruses.

"How come all of the sudden this safe medicine that people use all the time is dangerous?!" The side effects of HCQ have been well known for years and have always required consideration and management. They may be showing up more strongly here because it is being given to patients whose bodies are already under extreme stress. Also, azithromycin may amplify some of those side effects.

"They just hate Trump." Not everything is about Donald Trump. If it turned out that kissing Donald Trump's giant orange backside cured COVID, scientists would be the first ones telling people to line up and use chapstick.

The other camp's response has ranged from undisguised glee -- that is, joy at the idea that we won't be saving lives cheaply -- to bizarre claims that Trump should be charged with crimes for touting this unproven therapy.

(A perfect illustration of the dementia: former FDA Head Scott Gottlieb -- who has been a Godsend for objective analysis during the pandemic -- tweeted out the results of the RECOVERY unblinding yesterday morning and noted that it showed no increased safety risk. He was immediately dogpiled by one side insisting he was trying to conceal the miracle cure of HCQ and the other insisting he is a Trumpist doing the Orange Man's dirty work.)

In the end, the lunatics do not matter. Whether HCQ works or not, whether it is used or not, will be mostly determined by doctors and will mostly be based on the evidence we have in front of us. If HCQ fails -- and it's not looking good -- my only response will be massive disappointment. Had HCQ worked, it would have been a gift from the heavens. It is a well-known, well-studied drug that can be manufactured cheaply in bulk. Had it worked, we could have saved thousands of lives, prevented hundreds of thousands of long-term injuries and saved trillions of dollars. That it doesn't appear to work -- certainly not miraculously -- is not entirely unexpected but is also a tragedy.

{C1} The Christian Science Monitor looks at 1918 and how sports handled that pandemic, and the role it played in giving rise to college football.

"That's really what started the big boom of college football in the 1920s," said Jeremy Swick, historian at the College Football Hall of Fame. "People were ready. They were back from war. They wanted to play football again. There weren't as many restrictions about going out. You could enroll back in school pretty easily. You see a great level of talent come back into the atmosphere. There's new money. It started to get to the roar of the Roaring '20s and that's when you see the stadiums arm race. Who can build the biggest and baddest stadium?"

{C2} During times of rapid change, social science is supposed to be able to help lead the way or at least decipher what is going on. Or maybe not...

But while Willer, Van Bavel, and their colleagues were putting together their paper, another team of researchers put together their own, entirely opposite, call to arms: a plea, in the face of an avalanche of behavioral science research on COVID-19, for psychology researchers to have some humility. This paper—currently published online in draft format and seeding avid debates on social media—argues that much of psychological research is nowhere near the point of being ready to help in a crisis. Instead, it sketches out an “evidence readiness” framework to help people determine when the field will be.

{C3} There is a related story about AI - which is predisposed towards tracking slow change over time - is having trouble keeping up.

{C4} The Covid-19 does not bode well for higher education is not news. They may have a lot of difficulty opening up (and maybe shouldn't). An added wrinkle is kids taking a gap year, which is potentially a problem because those most able to pay may be least likely to attend.

{C5} People who can see the faults with abstinence only education fail to see how that logic (We shouldn't give guidance to people doing things we would rather they not do in the first place). Emily Oster argues that the extreme message of public health advocates to Just Stay Home is counterproductive.

When people are advised that one very difficult behavior is safe, and (implicitly or not) that everything else is risky, they may crack under the pressure, or throw up their hands. That is, if people think all activities (other than staying home) are equally risky, they figure they might as well do those that are more fun. If taking a walk at a six-foot distance from a friend puts me at very high risk, why not just have that friend and a bunch of others over for a barbecue? It’s more fun. This is an exaggeration, of course, but different activities carry very different risks, and conscientious civic leaders should actively help people choose among them.

{C6} A look at what canceling the football season will do to the little guys - non-power schools. Ironically, they may sustain less damage due to fewer financial obligations relying on the money that won't be coming in. Be that as it may, Fordham has disestablished its baseball program.

{C7} Bans on evictions and rental spikes could have the main effect of simply pushing out small investors, rather than protecting renters. In a more good-faith economy this would be less of an issue because landlords would work with tenants. Which some are, though I don't have too much faith about it being widespread.

{C8} Three cheers for Nick Saban. Football coaches are cultural leaders of a sort. One is about to become a senator in Alabama, even. What they do matters.

The American college experience for better or for worse revolves around the residency factor. We have turned college into a relatively safe place for young adults to the test the limits of freedom without suffering too many consequences. Better to miss a day of classes because you drank too much than to miss a day of an apprenticeship or job and get fired. College was cut short this semester because of COVID and colleges are freaking out about whether they can open up dorms in the fall. The dorms are big money makers and it is hard to justify huge tuition bucks for zoom lectures even for elite universities. Maybe especially for them. California State University announced that Fall 2020 is going to be largely online. My undergrad alma mater sent out an e-mail blast announcing their plan to reopen in the fall with "mostly" in person classes. The President admitted that the plan was a work in progress but it strikes me as a combination of common sense and extreme wishful thinking. The plan may include:

1. Staggered drop-off days to limit density as we return.

This sounds reasonable but only in a temporary way because eventually everyone will be back on campus, living in dorm rooms together, needing to use communal bathrooms and showers.

2. Students would be tested for COVID-19 on campus at least twice in the first 14 days.

There is nothing wrong with this as long as the testing is available. Our capacity for testing so far in this country has not been great.

3. Anyone experiencing symptoms would be tested immediately. Students who test positive would be cared for in a separate dormitory area where food would be brought to the room and where the student could still access classes remotely.

Nothing wrong here. Outbreaks of certain diseases are not unknown in the college setting. During my senior year, there was an outbreak of a rather nasty strain of gastroenteritis. Other universities have experienced meningitis outbreaks.

4. All students would take their temperature and report symptoms daily.

This one is also reasonable but is going to involve spying on students and coming up with a punishment mechanism. How will they make sure students are not lying?

5. We would also require that socializing be kept to a minimum in the beginning, with proper PPE (masks) and social distancing. As time went on, we would seek to open up more, and students could socialize and eat together in small groups.

I have no idea how they tend for this to happen and it sets of all my lawyer bells for carefully crafted language that attempts to answer a concern or question but also admits "we got nothing." Maybe today's students are more somber and sincere but you are going to have around 500 eighteen year olds who are away from their parents for the first time and another 1500 nineteen to twenty-one year olds who had their semester rudely interrupted and might now be reunited with boyfriends and girlfriends. Are they going to assign eating times for the dining hall and put up solo eating cubicles that get wiped down and disinfected after each use? Assign times to use laundry facilities in each dorm? Cancel the clubs? Cancel performances by the theatre, dance, and music departments?

I am sympathetic to my alma I love it but and realize that a lot of colleges and universities would take a real hit financially without residency. This includes universities with reasonable to very large endowments. Only the ones with hedge fund size endowments would not suffer but the last part of the plain sounds not fully thought out yet even if my college's current President admitted: "Life on campus will not look the same as it did pre-pandemic" The only way i see number 5 working is if requiring is read as "requiring."

Seems that the theory that Covid-19 can be spread by asymptomatic people has very shaky evidence in support of it. Turns out the case this assumption was made from was based on a single woman who infected 4 others. Researchers talked to the 4 patients, and they all said the patient 0 did not appear ill, but they could not speak to patient 0 at the time.

So they finally got to talk to her, and she said she was feeling ill, but powered through with the aid of modern pharmaceuticals.

Ten Second News

Today we couldn’t be happier to announce that Vox Media and New York Media are merging to create the leading independent modern media company. Our combined business will be called Vox Media and will serve hundreds of millions of audience members wherever they prefer to enjoy our work.

In a nation in turmoil, it's nice to have even a small bit of good news:

Representative Steve King of Iowa, the nine-term Republican with a history of racist comments who only recently became a party pariah, lost his bid for renomination early Wednesday, one of the biggest defeats of the 2020 primary season in any state.

In a five-way primary, Mr. King was defeated by Randy Feenstra, a state senator, who had the backing of mainstream state and national Republicans who found Mr. King an embarrassment and, crucially, a threat to a safe Republican seat if he were on the ballot in November.

The defeat was most likely the final political blow to one of the nation’s most divisive elected officials, whose insults of undocumented immigrants foretold the messaging of President Trump, and whose flirtations with extremism led him far from rural Iowa, to meetings with anti-Muslim crusaders in Europe and an endorsement of a Toronto mayoral candidate with neo-Nazi ties.

King, you may remember, was stripped of his committee assignments last year when he defended white supremacism. Two years ago, he almost lost his Congressional seat in the general. That is, a seat that Republicans have held since 1986, usually win by double digits and a district Trump carried by a whopping 27 points almost came within a point or two of voting in a Democrat. That's how repulsive King had gotten.

Good riddance to bad rubbish. Enjoy retirement, Congressman. Oops. Sorry. In January, it will be former Congressman.

Comment →

From the Daily Mail: Deadliest city in America plans to disband its entire police force and fire 270 cops to deal with budget crunch

The deadliest city in America is disbanding its entire police force and firing 270 cops in an effort to deal with a massive budget crunch.

...

The police union says the force, which will not be unionized, is simply a union-busting move that is meant to get out of contracts with current employees. Any city officers that are hired to the county force will lose the benefits they had on the unionized force.

Oak Park police say they are investigating “suspicious circumstances” after two attorneys — including one who served as a hearing officer in several high-profile Chicago police misconduct cases — were found dead in their home in the western suburb Monday night.

Officers were called about 7:30 p.m. for a well-being check inside a home in the 500 block of Fair Oaks Avenue, near Chicago Avenue, and found the couple dead inside, Oak Park spokesman David Powers said in an emailed statement. Authorities later identified them as Thomas E. Johnson, 69, and Leslie Ann Jones, 67, husband and wife attorneys who worked in Chicago.

The preliminary report from an independent autopsy ordered by George Floyd's family says the 46 year old man's death was "caused by asphyxia due to neck and back compression that led to a lack of blood flow to the brain".

The independent examiners found that weight on the back, handcuffs and positioning were contributory factors because they impaired the ability of Floyd's diaphragm to function, according to the report.

Dr. Michael Baden and the University of Michigan Medical School's director of autopsy and forensic services, Dr. Allecia Wilson, handled the examination, according to family attorney Ben Crump.

Baden, who was New York's medical examiner in 1978 and 1979, had previously performed independent autopsies on Eric Garner, who was killed by a police officer in Staten Island, New York, in 2014 and Michael Brown, who was shot by officers in Ferguson, Missouri, that same year.

Featured Comment

Oddly, the video was dropped by an attorney friend the men, because he thought it would exonerate them. He assumed when people saw Aubrey turn and try to defend himself, everyone would see what they did: a dangerous animal needing to be put down.